The Ford Motor Company And The Ford Pinto Car

Ford entered into the automobile market many years ago and became the oldest car manufacturers. It is the first company which specialized in large scale manufacturing of the cars. The production of Ford cars is done in highly engineered way with the help of moving assembly lines.

The Ford automobile company began producing the Ford Pinto line up in 1968. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the time of the pinto production was Lee Iacocca. The reason for the decision to mass produce the pinto in a short amount of time is because American automobiles were losing market share to smaller Japanese imports. Lee Iacocca wanted his engineers to design and manufacture a compact car that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and cost less than 2,000 dollars. Because of this monumental task from Lee Iacocca, that meant the ford pinto automobile would have to be built within 25 months instead of the typical 43 months. There are many safety test that is mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration before a vehicle

Moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises included producing dangerous products which are not safe to use it without informing the dangerous of the products to the public. In addition, lobbying the NHTSA to delay the safety measure of the products is also one of the moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises.

Another corporation that operated unethically was Ford Motor Company with the production of the Ford Pinto. To compete with international competition and achieve Lee’s goal of producing the Pinto within a small time frame led to designing and manufacturing flaws. This resulted in a fuel tank design that would put the Pinto in a combustible situation should rear end accidents penetrate the poorly designed fuel tank. Realizing the design malfunction and deciding how to fix the fuel tank

ANS: The Pinto case raise the moral issues of what is the dollar value of the human life. That the businesses should not be putting a value on human life and disregard a known deadly danger. In order to perform a risk/benefit analysis, all costs and benefits must be expressed in some common measure. This measure is typically in dollars, as the Ford Motor Company used in its analysis. This can prove difficult for things that are not commonly bought and sold on the open market. Therefore, totell someone that there is a certain price for their life is a preposterous notion. There are numerous things which individuals consider priceless. Ford thought they could get

Business ethics since the beginning of this decade has been slowly eroding; if we are to believe what we see and hear in the media. Several times a day, one can view some derogatory piece of information concerning a business. However, it must also be considered that these companies are contributing to that stigma. There have been a variety of companies and individuals who have figured prominently in the media concerning their unethical behavior.

Unfortunately the vehicle had one major design fault, the vehicle fuel tank when hit by a moderate rear collision would rupture and incinerate the persons trapped inside which led to injury and death. After reviewing this case study, my assumption of the Ford Company acknowledges that they did not make the right business ethics decision of allowing the Pinto to be sold, the vehicle passed federal safety standards minimally. Although while other manufactures models underwent the same crash assessments and performed roughly the same which one can argue that this status quo is the norm.

It’s 1968 and the Ford Motor Company is losing ground to foreign made cars that are smaller with improved fuel efficiency. Additionally, these cars are cheaper to produce and thus easier to purchase for the already strapped American consumer. The vice-president of Ford Motors is Lee Iacocca who, tired of losing ground to the foreign competition, has devised a plan to introduce an American subcompact car that can compete for the domestic market share currently being swallowed by foreign automakers. In order to field the automobile as quickly as possible and compete for said market share, it should be designed and developed on an accelerated schedule. This means keeping costs to a minimum which in turn may result in safety standards taking a back seat to production schedules. From 1971 to 1978 the car enjoys profitable sales records but as time passes, trouble lurks in the shadows as safety issues are beginning to rear their ugly heads. So the question is proposed; Can Ford Motors make the right decision so as to balance public trust while simultaneously increasing corporate profits?

The moral issues raised by Pinto case are the life of a man can be paid off with the money. Ford Company should not only concern about their benefits and disregard the human life. In order to perform cost-benefit analysis, all costs and benefits must be expressed in the common measure. This measure is typically in money, as Ford Company used it in its analysis. Ford Company believes that everyone has certain price in their life. Therefore, they believe that they are able to compensate for a human life if any accident happens. But, Ford Company has forgotten that there are numerous things which are priceless in the world just like the life of a man.

In this paper covering product liability, begins by looking at product liability as a whole. Product liability is at concern of both the user of the product and the manufacturer. To further define product liability the case of Ford’s Pinto brings into question why are manufacturer willing to not fix their product if it would save lives. Ford can be deemed as a company, at the time that had no concern for human life however during the era, many practices were very similar not by reason of a complete disregard for human safety yet is was more so the law is always changing and there just wasn’t strong protect for the consumer in the law. However not in all situations of product liability the manufacture is the ones at fault. Next is discussed on a case where the manufacture cannot be held accountable for injuries, even death and history plays a big factor is such cases. To understand were product liability came from it helps us see where the law is going. With new development in technology product liability will be directed to be viewed again and again. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). , 2016)

Ford Motor Company has tough competition with European and Japanese manufacturers, therefore the company did not respond well and suffered

Is the deception of consumers worth making a profit? The Ford Pinto, popular car of the 1970s, made a profit off of a vehicle that endangered the lives of hundreds of people. In his essay “Pinto Madness” Mark Dowie, author and Pulitzer Prize nominee, exposed the unethical decisions made by Ford Motor Company. When it came to their customer’s safety and profit for the company, Ford made a decision that led to consequences their customers had to pay the price for. Should the business be held accountable for these actions? In his essay “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profit” Milton Friedman, powerful economist, discusses what a business should prioritize in the economic system. Friedman declares what a business is responsible for and the guidelines they must follow. Due to Friedman’s view, he would not have condoned the actions and decisions that the executives at Ford Motor Company took.

Word got out about the Pinto gas tank problems, and soon this became a huge press-related issue for Ford. Management at Ford decided to do a risk/benefit analysis, but it determined that the amount of money made off the car was higher then the cost to pay the liability to those that got injured or killed. In the determination, management decided profit outweighed human life. The issues began with the lack of care Ford put towards the engineering process in pre-development, and the lack of conscience exhibited by the manufacturer when confronted with defective obstacles which could have delayed the production and cost millions of dollars, which in their mind was not an option.

The Ford Motor Company has had a rather tarnished legal history. Ford got into some hot water in the 1990s and 2000s over multiple safety scandals. One of these scandals occurred in 1996 and involved faulty ignition switches that would short and cause fires. The ignition switch scandal then led to Ford being sued by State Farm for neglecting to release information about the faulty ignition switches and their tendency to start fires.

Specialisation is a scheme of production, where firms have people focusing on one certain part of the product. For example, in a company that makes toothpaste, one person screws on the cap, one person packs them into a box, one person transports it, and so on. These people are specialised in their field of experience, therefore given that certain task to complete. Division of labour, and specilaisation are very similar, they both relate to giving certain tasks to certain specialised people to improve the performance and speed of the good or service. The Ford Motor Company, used methods as such to help the process of building cars. Henry Ford founded it on 16th June 1903. Before the automated assembly line was invented, a group of workers would sit and manually fix part onto the car. This is an example of specialisation. Only a few cars were built each day. When the automated assembly line was introduced, the productivity of this company soared. (“History Channel, “This Day In History”). Ever since, companies have become efficient in producing product and services for consumers, because the automated assembly line has become a huge benefit in terms of quantity, and a lot of cases, quality. Production overall as we know it today, has become extremely modern, fast, reliable and can do many more things, ever since the automated production line has been popularized. Henry Ford came up with brilliant ideas, for the production line. His concept for this was extremely